Send hex command bytes to the PPK2 and return the device response. Reset commands need confirm=true; unavailable during sampling.
逃生舱:发送原始命令字节(hex,如 "19" 读元数据)并回收响应。
含 0x20(RESET,会触发 USB 重枚举)时必须 confirm=true。 采样进行中不可用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| data_hex | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a dangerous side effect (0x20 = RESET, which triggers USB re-enumeration) and an operational precondition (unusable during sampling). It does not describe response format or error behavior, but the key destructive trait is surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the two constraints. Every clause carries operational information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-level escape-hatch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers input format, the destructive case, and the unavailability window. Missing only return-value or failure-mode expectations, which is a minor gap for an escape hatch.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does: data_hex is described as hex bytes with an example, and confirm is tied to a precise trigger condition (presence of 0x20). Encoding details are only partially specified, so it stops short of a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: send raw command bytes (hex) and retrieve the response, plus a concrete example ("19" reads metadata). The "逃生舱" (escape hatch) framing plus "raw" distinguishes it from the high-level siblings like set_mode or capture, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives two concrete conditions: confirm=true is required when the payload contains 0x20, and the tool is unavailable while a sampling/capture is in progress. This tells the agent when it may and may not call it, though it does not explicitly say to prefer a higher-level sibling whenever one exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.